Access: The "leaked" IPCC AR5 draft Summary for Policymakers

For weeks, this document has been put in the hands of most every journalist that writes about climate issues, and many articles have been written about its contents. Given that much of the work done in it was publicly funded at universities, and because the discussion in the media has placed the issue in the public domain of discussion, plus with the IPCC Stockholm meeting to hammer out the final version convening this week, and with the announcement today that IPCC chair Rajenda Pachauri willl step down in 2015, (translation here) I feel it is time to make this document available so that the public also has the opportunity for (as the IPCC put it in their press release) line-by-line scrutiny.

People have been asking me to comment on the leaked IPCC Final Draft Summary for Policy Makers. Apparently someone in the IPCC made the Report available to ‘friendly’ journalists, as part of a strategy to brief them before the formal release of the Report. – Dr. Judith Curry

The IPCC’s processes and procedures are constantly being reviewed and updated to ensure that they remain strong, transparent and reliable.

Given the keen worldwide interest, and the many articles written about the AR5 draft SPM in media with access to it, there’s no reason anymore for the public to be left out of the process. It will also be interesting to compare to the final SPM to see what the politicians have morphed the document into. Reportedly, there are some 1800 changes that have already been requested by government representatives.

For some insight into the IPCC process, and the pointless levels of secrecy they added on to reviewers, see this website by Paul Matthews, an applied mathematician at the University of Nottingham:

The IPCC Report – Looking into the 5th IPCC report

Drafts, reviews and leaks

http://ipccreport.wordpress.com/2013/09/23/drafts-reviews-and-leaks/

I found this statement interesting:

Since the draft reports cite research papers that have been accepted but not published, reviewers have the right to see these papers. I requested three such papers and received the following response from the IPCC:

“Please find attached a copy of the non-published literature you requested. For security reasons, the attached copy is an encrypted version of a pdf. The copy can be viewed by a software (LockLizard) which is provided free of charge and is simple and quick to download. Below you will find instructions on how to download the software, register the license, and view the protected file.“

Take a look at the LockLizard website – especially the video at the top. This gives an insight into the secrecy paranoia of the IPCC. These are research papers on climate science, soon to be published, but in the view of the IPCC they are closely guarded secrets.

Dr. Judith Curry talks about the leaks:

The IPCC’s ‘inconvenient truth’ — a pause in surface warming for the past 15+ years

Publication of the IPCC AR4 in 2007 was received with international acclaim. The vaunted IPCC process – multitudes of experts from over a hundred countries over a period of four years, examining thousands of refereed journal publications, with hundreds of expert reviewers – elevated the authority of the IPCC AR4 to near biblical heights. Journalists jumped on board, and even the oil and energy companies neared capitulation. The veneration culminated with the Nobel Peace Prize, which the IPCC was awarded jointly with Al Gore. At the time, I joined the consensus in supporting this document as authoritative: I bought into the meme of “don’t trust what one scientist says; rather trust the consensus building process of the IPCC experts.”

Six and a half years later and a week before the release of the IPCC 5th Assessment Report (AR5), substantial criticisms are being made of leaked versions of the Report as well as of the IPCC process itself. IPCC insiders are bemoaning their loss of their scientific and political influence. What happened?

The IPCC was seriously tarnished by the unauthorized release of emails from the University of East Anglia in November 2009, known as Climategate. These emails revealed the ‘sausage making’ involved in the IPCC’s consensus building process, including denial of data access to individuals who wanted to audit their data processing and scientific results, interference in the peer review process to minimize the influence of skeptical criticisms, and manipulation of the media. Climategate was quickly followed by the identification of an egregious error involving the melting of Himalayan glaciers. These revelations were made much worse by the actual response of the IPCC to these issues. Then came the concerns about the behavior of the IPCC’s Director, Rachendra Pachauri, and investigations of the infiltration of green advocacy groups into the IPCC. All of this was occurring against a background of explicit advocacy and activism by IPCC leaders related to CO2 mitigation policies.

The IPCC does not seem to understand the cumulative impact of these events on the loss of trust in climate scientists and the IPCC process itself. The IPCC’s consensus building process relies heavily on expert judgment; if the public and the policy makers no longer trust these particular experts, then we can expect a very different dynamic to be in play with regards to the reception of the AR5 relative to the AR4.

…

Based upon early drafts of the AR5, the IPCC seemed prepared to dismiss the pause in warming as irrelevant ‘noise’ associated with natural variability. Under pressure, the IPCC now acknowledges the pause and admits that climate models failed to predict it. The IPCC has failed to convincingly explain the pause in terms of external radiative forcing from greenhouse gases, aerosols, solar or volcanic forcing; this leaves natural internal variability as the predominant candidate to explain the pause. If the IPCC attributes to the pause to natural internal variability, then this begs the question as to what extent the warming between 1975 and 2000 can also be explained by natural internal variability. Not to mention raising questions about the confidence that we should place in the IPCC’s projections of future climate change.

http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/20/the-ipccs-inconvenient-truth/

In my view, the IPCC now faces its ultimate test of credibility. Given its botched and dismissive reactions to errors pointed out by the public in the blogosphere in the past few years, I don’t expect they will rise to the occasion – the skills for presentation to the public in the current dynamic just aren’t there.

“Friendly” is a euphemism for “left-wing, Greenshirt” motivated. Since Dr. Curry looks relatively useful to skeptics she is given an immediate exemption for her obfuscation. Skeptics determined to add 30+ years to the climate war through this permissive approach.

Interesting that Rajendra Pachauri is saying that he is stepping down. He’s told Roger Harrabin that he isn’t retiring from the IPCC chair. Either Spiegel is not in the “in” crowd is Roger out. I put my money on Roger. He’s wrong about everything else.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24204323

It looks like this is all we’re getting by way of concession:
“The rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998−2012; 25 0.05 [−0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade) is smaller than the trend since 1951 (1951−2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 26 0.14] °C per decade)”

My favorite quote :
“If the IPCC attributes to the pause to natural internal variability, then this begs the question as to what extent the warming between 1975 and 2000 can also be explained by natural internal variability”
It almost certainly implies climate sensitivity to CO2 is significantly lower than the 3-4 deg C doomsday / CAGW scenarios, thus there is no crisis.

The precise wording of the final release of AR5 doesn’t really matter.
In my view, the important question is how the mainstream media decide to play it.
There will be sufficient material for publications to continue with the CO2/warmest/alarmist agenda and I suspect that is exactly what will happen. However, there’s a chance some journalists will decide to depart from the gospel and emphasize some of the more obvious problems like the complete failure of the models.
Anthony will likely be the first to know for sure since the rebellious journos will undoubtedly be calling him for comment.
We shall see!

Errr……
“The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by more than 20% since 1958 when systematic atmospheric measurements began (see Figure SPM.3), and by about 40% since 1750. The increase is a result of human activity, virtually all due to burning of fossil fuels and deforestation”

Page 9 – finally something substantial about the failure to anticipate the “pause”:
“There is very high confidence that models reproduce the more rapid warming in the second half of the 20th century, and the cooling immediately following large volcanic eruptions. Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10–15 years. There is medium confidence that this difference between models and observations is to a substantial degree caused by unpredictable climate variability, with possible contributions from inadequacies in the solar, volcanic, and aerosol forcings used by the models and, in some models, from too strong a response to increasing greenhouse-gas forcing.”

the SPM ocean heat content one is dishonest!!! pg32 (c) Nice scary rise.. y axis in joules
Translate joules into degrees C and it is about 0.09C in 55 years (source Met Office)
quote from Met Office doc (NOT IPCC SPM)
“There are much fewer observations below 700m, and the ocean below 2,000m has remained largely un-monitored. However, there is evidence of warming below 700m, and even below 2,000m. Careful processing of the available deep ocean records shows that the heat content of the upper 2,000m increased by 24 x 1022J over the 1955–2010 period (Levitus, 2012), equivalent to 0.09°C warming of this layer.” pg22http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/e/f/Paper1_Observing_changes_in_the_climate_system.PDF
The IPCC presenting that rising graph will mean people think thee is a problem, rapidly rising ocean temp (energy really)!!!
that is actually a claim of measuring a rate rise of <2 thousandths of a degree per decade!!!
if degrees C is good enough for global surface air temp (or proxy for energy) why not show the ocean heat graph in degree C. Why not because people would laugh at the scale.

No time to read it in detail at this point, so I just looked at the pictures. I feel so… dirty 😉
Figure SPM.5 is revealing. It appears to show that the models match observations. Upon inspection, they’ve used decadal averages for all time series, which completely obliterates the divergence between the models and observations over the last 15 years or so.

Heh. LockLizard Digital Restrictions Management on top of all the other DRM schemes. I won’t even look to see if my DRM stripper has the necessary script.
Evidently the IPCC is unaware of the Open Access – OA – movement for transparency in academia. Ahh, they are propagandists guarding their own Gulag Archipelago and not academics.

The total anthropogenic RF since 1750 is 2.3 [1.1 to 3.3] W m−2 (see Figure SPM.4), and it has increased more rapidly since 1970 than during prior decades. The total anthropogenic RF estimate for 2011 is 44% higher compared to the estimate reported in AR4 for the year 2005. This is due in about equal parts to reductions in estimates of the forcing resulting from aerosols and continued growth in most greenhouse gas concentrations. {8.5.1}

44% higher since 1970! Well we must be really heating up as RF = Radiative Forcing.
But…

Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10–15 years. There is medium confidence that this difference between models and observations is to a substantial degree caused by unpredictable climate variability, with possible contributions from inadequacies in the solar, volcanic, and aerosol forcings used by the models and, in some models, from too strong a response to increasing greenhouse-gas forcing. {9.4.1, 10.3.1, 11.3.2; Box 9.2}

Oops.
~How do you get the medium confidence on the pause being caused from volcanic forcings? There have been none to speak of.
~The solar forcings are too poorly known to have any confidence in, if they are considered a potential cause if the pause.
~Aerosol forcings? If that is out then the whole calibration for volcanoes is out so that doesn’t really work either.

Anyone seen the graph on the final page? A scary looking temperature anomaly charted against anthro CO2 contribution, with the temperature anomaly relative to *1861-1880*. Just what confidence level does the IPCC have in the accuracy of global temperature measurements in the middle decades of the 19th century? Is this ever stated in any of the IPCC output?

This has got to be the most expensive and costly act of global handwaving the world has ever seen, and hopefully will ever see for a very long time. It has taken 25 years for the ‘best scientists’ and almost all the worlds National Academies of Science to consider that climate has some natural variability to it, not tied to volcanoes or solar irradiance; a fact that has been completely obvious from the very beginning. They are considering it only because the have to. And while they take many more years to consider the obvious, they handwave!
Wikipedia describes ‘handwaving’ as: “… a pejorative label applied to the action of displaying the appearance of doing something, when actually doing little, or nothing. For example, it is applied to debate techniques that involve fallacies. It is also used in working situations where productive work is expected, but no work is actually accomplished.”

davidmhoffer… and I.P.C.C. will be able (unless the public says no) to continue to expand the time horizon for decades to come all built upon the manufactured rise since the 70’s that due to adjustments will never go away. One day the public is going to wonder… what about those +0.7°C “upward adjustments” made to the temperature records, what about that, what of UHI, have we had the wool pulled over our eyes? One day, and stop speaking of the irrelevant always-bright-red model mumbo-jumbo charts all built on incorrect parameters and assumptions.

Let’s recall that the so called media leak landed on Reuters lap, in fact the Thomson Reuters Foundation home of uber green peddler Sir Crispin Tickell… That says it all. In Canada, Globemedia, owned by the Thomson family, has been among the fiercest propagandists of the Cause, with Op ed of luminaries such as Maurice Strong, Balsillie and any sub zero level “climate change” academics that can blame a flood on CAGW! Their journalists are low level propagandists that recycle catastrophism and carbon taxing proselytism.
This is was no leak IMO. This was a deliberate pre-release for friendlies. In fact, since that leak, Globemedia has been unsusually quiet on the climate front, suggesting a series of articles are being worked and will be released in time for the Stockholm meeting.
The BS of volcanoes, aerosols and other sudden one way solar influence (only when it cools) is now emerging from Reuters reports. The distortion of the climate sensitivity issue and sea level scares are the bread and butter of Anna Ringstrom’s Reuters piece.
Reuters, Thomson Reuters, Globemedia are jusge and party in this affair.

SadButMadLad says:
September 23, 2013 at 11:20 am
Interesting that Rajendra Pachauri is saying that he is stepping down. …
Human role in warming ‘more certain’ – UN climate chiefhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24204323
BBC is also citing the Marcott hockeystick in this article

Well, this clearly puts you outside the range of normal, respectful, ethical behavior. The excuses you provide at the beginning of this post are lame. You should be ashamed of yourself.
In the end, since this is about to be released anyway, your unethical behavior probably has little cost to anyone else, but I suspect it is going to cost you a great deal in the way of credibility among legitimate scientists, members of the press, policy makers, etc.
Or were you thinking that your credibility is already pretty much blown anyway?

Mac the Knife says:
September 23, 2013 at 11:56 am
AR5, like its predecessors, is a political document, not a scientific document.
/////////////////
This would appear so since why else would you publish a summary for policy makers before the finalisation of the scientific report?
Surely, the report should come first. Once published, a summary of key point can the be prepared for the less scientifically minded, and for those that the activist scientist wish to lead in the direction of their activism.
It seems to me that they are putting the cart before the horse, and at this stage they do not even know whther the horse is a thoroughbred or just some knacker fit only for the knacker’s yard.

Now that Australia’s CO2 machine is grinding to a hault, other countries will be questioning the folks who bring this report back home to the table. In open session there will be lots of furrowed brows and consternation of predicted planetary doom in order to continue the gravy game. In private sessions there will be lots of furrowed brows and consternation of predicted political doom should the pause continue. And so far, ENSO patterns predict at least a continued pause.
Paint, meet corner.

Greg Laden, did you just wake up from a coma? Got a hangover? Just got fired? Ate chilli and huckleberry pie before retiring last night? Just found out your wife is suing for divorce? Did a dog bite you? What?

Here is an interesting little twist
1. When they look at projections for sea level and air temp they use all models, regardless of the fact that some of them are total crap.
2. When they look at Arctic ice, they take a subset of models….
Which subset
For sea ice extent (b), the projected
mean and uncertainty (minimum-maximum range) of the subset of models that most closely reproduce the
climatological mean state and 1979‒2012 trend of the Arctic sea ice is given. For completeness, the CMIP5 multi-
model mean is indicated with dashed lines. {Figures 6.28, 12.5, and 12.28–12.31; Figures TS.15, TS.17, and TS.20}
Of course all the models, the mean of all models shows more ice than the subset.

“There is very high confidence that models reproduce the more rapid warming in the second half of the 20th century, and the cooling immediately following large volcanic eruptions. Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10–15 years.”
Why should anyone care what your “confidence” level is when it is evident that you don’t comprehend this fundamental fact: Models create contingency (i.e. “the scenarios”) but can never resolve it, and since information gain is the resolution of contingency, models teach us nothing. It seems silly to have to state this but AGW detection is a detection problem, not a modeling problem. If they can’t find a signal that they say has persisted and increased over half the data record (funny the NSA has no problem pulling my spread spectrum cellphone call out of the noise) then I want my money back.

“at IPCC chair Rajenda Pachauri willl step down in 2015, ..”
Oh no, I hope he changes his mind and stays on. Rajenda Pachauri has done far more for the skeptic/denialist side than anything the skeptics could have conceived. As long as he stays as chairman, the IPCC will have little credibility. I hope he remains chairman for many years to come.

Friends:
Several people have posted comments which suggest the IPCC AR5 should not be a political document but should be a scientific document.That suggestion displays ignorance of the official nature and purpose of the IPCC.
The stipulated nature and purpose of the IPCC is clearly stated in the “Principles” which govern IPCC work. These are athttp://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
Near its beginning that IPCC document says

ROLE
2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.

So, the IPCC does NOT exist to summarise climate science. .
The IPCC exists to provide
(a) “information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change”
and
(b) “options for adaptation and mitigation” that would be “policies”.Hence, its “Role” demands that the IPCC accepts as a given that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires political policies to be selected from “options for adaptation and mitigation” that the IPCC is tasked to provide.
This “Role” is pure politics acting behind a mask which resembles science; i.e. Lysenkoism.
Richard

AR4 was born using precisely the same murky bureaucratic shenanigans outlined above but they got found out. Skeptics did actually go back and check the summary against the underlying documents, did discover nearly one-third of the science experts were actually nothing more than environmental activists and even that some of the scientific predictions were based on nothing more than cut and pastes from alarmist pamphlets. Knowing the arrogance of the same people involved, I’ve no doubt AR5 will prove to be a bastard child of a similar provenance.http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/09/20/armageddon-report-no-5/
Pointman

The term “The Pause” has all but been co-oped by the warmist agenda. Expect years more of idiotic rationalization that it is no big deal even it refutes decades of hype and predictions of catastrophe. The hypothesis is observationally dead but will be reduced to “glitch” status and therefore largely ignored in the tool MSM. New meme’s can be invented in a heartbeat, “Missing heat deep in the ocean” says expert Ken Trenbreth etc. etc. New models making up deep ocean heat are just around the corner.
Then again, nature can turn and “The Pause” will be Orwellian erased by the Climate establishment out right. It will join the Medieval Warming Period as something that never happened.
Skeptics looking to Dr. Curry are like conservatives looking to David Brooks at the NYTimes for support, hopelessly stupid.

Pointman,
You understand the canard of the AGW agenda but do you understand the spineless weakness of the skeptic community for the most part?
Many people think better graphing of actual data is going to change the game. There’s one born every minute.

“The observed reduction in warming trend over the period 1998–2012 as compared to the period 1951–1 2012, is due in roughly equal measure to a cooling contribution from internal variability and a reduced 2 trend in radiative forcing (medium confidence). The reduced trend in radiative forcing is primarily due 3 to volcanic eruptions and the downward phase of the current solar cycle. However, there is low 4 confidence in quantifying the role of changes in radiative forcing in causing this reduced warming 5 trend. {Box 9.2; 10.3.1; Box 10.2}”
Translation: It was the sun. Or super secret volcanoes. Or something.

“There is robust evidence that the downward trend in Arctic summer sea ice extent since 1979 is now better simulated than at the time of the AR4, with about one-quarter of the models showing a trend as large as, or larger than, the trend in the observations. Most models simulate a small decreasing trend in Antarctic sea ice extent, albeit with large inter-model spread, in contrast to the small increasing trend in 30 observations. {9.4.3}“
“one-quarter of the models showing a trend as large as, or larger than, the trend in the observations”
Translation: 75% of the models were wrong about Arctic Sea Ice. But we’ll claim we got it right when we only got it right 25% of the time.
“Most models simulate a small decreasing trend in Antarctic sea ice extent
Translation: None of the models got Antarctic Sea Ice right.”
What a joke.

Robbin, the term “The Pause” was invented to be moderately palatable to warmists by other consensus players like Dr. Curry. It’s subplot messaging is preposterous on the face of it.
The Pause = Total observational failure of AGW claims and models.
Look, they didn’t feel good being forced into predictions decades back. Then as now a desperate political agenda was being played out on a world stage. Without those wildly wrong predictions there would have been no Kyoto Protocal for example. Now they get off the hook with the minimalist phrasing “The Pause” and the debunking of 25+ Years of co2 claims is managed.
“The Pause” is an idiotic term filled with the AGW narrative and AGW is mostly a narrative not actual science.

Interesting.There is medium confidence from reconstructions that summer sea ice retreat and increase in sea surface temperatures in the Arctic over the past three decades are anomalous in the perspective of at least the last 2,000 years.
I only know of one reconstruction and they’re cocksure it’s unprecedented for at least 1.5k years. I’d like to know what other papers forced the confidence level 4 steps down from virtually certain.

A pause in a non-linear system does not tell one which direction it will take when another trend up or down begins again, and it surely will begin again in some fashion based on previous observations. After all, weather is not white noise. Weather has its weather pattern variations well known by agronomists. A trend up or down will most likely resume. But I cannot tell you which way it will go in terms of significance. It may be that the pause (IE understood by me as not significantly up or down) may also continue as a trend.
So in reference to the word “pause”, I am not one to get caught up in semantics. I say tuhmayduh you may say tumahtoe. I do the warsh, you may do the wash. Label it any word you like, just don’t label it significantly up or down.
That said, warming has not stopped. If I turn off my heater in the car in the middle of January, trust me, I don’t stay comfortably warm. It immediately starts a downward spiral to chilly. So some warming must still be getting to us to maintain a global average that is neither up nor down.

Pamela Gray, most sceptics have never said they can predict the weather years in advance.
If the warming has not stopped and global Temps have stayed constant then that is a new thing that is of some interest to those of us who are curious.
Yet while we may be astounded we are not confounded.
But those who predicted the end of the world (like the IPCC for all practical purposes) are truly troubled.
Well, they will be if they have any integrity.

The Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) has estimates of how much CO2 humans have emitted since 1750. (Confusingly, they convert the CO2 to tons of carbon with a fixed formula.) *** CDIAC writes “Since 1751 approximately 356 billion metric tonnes of carbon have been released to the atmosphere… . ” *** almost one-third of that number, 110 billion metric tonnes, have occurred since that time in 1998 …

‘Further, the IPCC has made it clear in their Principles and Procedures statement that they embrace transparency.’
in the same way the Ku Klux Klan ’embrace ‘ black people
The IPCC is parasitical organisation which dies when ‘the cause ‘ falls , its remit is self perpetuation with many of leaders out to further political ideas , no matter what the science.
In short a typical UN body , filled with typical UN people ,

Steven Mosher says:
September 23, 2013 at 12:43 pm
All the models & subsets thereof are worse than worthless, a waste of money made worse by the execrable public policy so insanely based upon them.
What does have value are actual observations, which show that for thousands of years in the Holocene & even more during the Eemian & prior interglacials, the Arctic Ocean has been less icy in summer than now. It was similarly open during an interval in the first half of this century as well, yet even more so during the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman WP, the Minoan WP & especially the Holocene Climatic Optimum.
Facts trump models. Every time.

JaniceMoore – CO2 UP — WARMING STOPPED
Spot on. It was my writing words to that effect on the Guardian website that finally got me put on permanent pre-moderation.
(That is some comments banned and others delayed so they are out of context).
GAME OVER for the IPCC.
[Reply: I checked, and you are not on pre-moderation. ~ mod.].]

If you use the link I provided (again in this post) to the IPCC “Principles” you will see it is headed

PRINCIPLES GOVERNING IPCC WORK
Approved at the Fourteenth Session (Vienna, 1-3 October 1998) on 1 October 1998, amended at the Twenty-First Session (Vienna, 3 and 6-7 November 2003), the Twenty-Fifth Session (Mauritius, 26-28 April 2006) and the Thirty-Fifth Session (Geneva, 6-9 June 2012)

This means it was approved by all the governments who are Signatories of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC).The IPCC is officially tasked to accept as a given that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires political policies to be selected from “options for adaptation and mitigation” that the IPCC is tasked to provide.
Richard

LockLizard, eh? For some reason that name for the IPCC’s security supplier sounds a little too appropriate. In the future they may wish to consider using LockShark. Or, maybe LockRat. For a lighter touch they may wish to employ LockWeasel. Or, for the ultimate they could go with LockSnake; preferably LockViper. I think, perhaps, we may just need our own security supplier to protect us from the IPCC, and I know of a good one. It’s called, LockAndThrownAwayTheKey.

“There’s no doubt that in terms of global temperatures we’ve hit a little flat spot in the road here,” Patzert said. “But there’s been no slowdown whatsoever in sea level rise, so global warming is alive and well.”

Did you see it? “no slowdown whatsoever in sea level rise” but I thought an acceleration in the rate of sea level rise is what we’re supposed to be worried about, not sea level rise which has been flattening for the last 4,000 years.

LA Times
“This unpredicted hiatus just reflects the fact that we don’t understand things as well as we thought,” said Roger Pielke Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado in Boulder and vocal critic of the climate change establishment. “Now the IPCC finds itself in a position that a science group never wants to be in. It’s in spin management mode.”

I couldn’t agree more. So much certainty but unsure what is causing the pause. Take another look at your models. They’re not so pretty.

It is a mistake to try to interpret the ARs as some form of scientific document. They are governmental press releases. They say what the governments want them to say, because governments are paying for the research, not to mention the IPCC, and everything else involved in producing them.
Look at them the way you would a press release from any corporation with a bottomless advertising budget, and a lust for increased “market share”. The government is selling “safety” in return for power. And the IPCC AR5 is just their latest extremely expensive ad campaign.

Jimbo says: September 23, 2013 at 2:28 pm
In the LA Times article I read: ………

The LA Times article is somewhat surprising in that it acknowledges the existence of The Pause, at least in the surface temperature record, and it also acknowledges that there isn’t a consensus opinion among climate scientists as to why The Pause has occurred.
You have to wonder what kind of debate went on within the LA Times editorial staff before the article was published. No doubt, someone yelled at the editor, “This article will encourage the deniers! Don’t print it!”
Regardless of these chinks in the IPCC’s armor, those who think the IPCC is on its last legs are greatly mistaken.The Pause must last thirty to fifty years before the IPCC and the climate science community ever publicly acknowledge there are serious problems with their climate models.

Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10-15 years.

Let me help them out.

The vast majority of our models do not reproduce the observed surface temperature standstill for the past 15 years and we don’t know why. We have some guesses for ya though. ———“unpredictable climate variability, with possible contributions from inadequacies in the solar, volcanic, and aerosol forcings used by the models and, in some models, from too strong a response to increasing greenhouse-gas forcing.”

The global mean surface temperature change for the period 2016–2035 will likely be in the range of 0.4°C to 1.0°C for the set of RCPs. This is based on an assessment of observationally-constrained projections and predictions initialized with observations (medium confidence).

Janice Moore says:
Does the world “cooling” appear anywhere in the document?
Yes:
1. P7 L16 Drivers of Climate Change ….”Positive RF leads to a warming, negative RF to a cooling….
2.P9 L12. “…..There is very high confidence that models reproduce the more rapid warming in the second half of the 20th century, and the cooling immediately following large volcanic eruptions.
3. P10 L44 …” including the cooling effect of aerosols…
4. P11 L2 …” due in roughly equal measure to a cooling contribution…

Greg Laden says:
September 23, 2013 at 12:30 pm
Well, this clearly puts you outside the range of normal, respectful, ethical behavior. The excuses you provide at the beginning of this post are lame. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Do you mean like the self confessed LIAR and WIRE FRAUDSTER Dr. Peter Glieck?

@richardscourtney says:
September 23, 2013 at 12:58 pm
Thank you for that reminder regarding the genesis of the IPCC. Based on your extracted material, it doesn’t seem that the current state of affairs was a foregone conclusion. Starting from square one, the potential range should have been “OMG we’re all gonna DIE” through “We don’t have a clue” to “Nothing to see here, move along”. That is looking at the purely scientific side of the political situation. As engineers know, of course, the devil is in the details. Once it was clear – likely long before the pages had cooled coming off the laser printer – that the political side could only be served through the necessity of government-scale action with concommitant control of vast sums of money (hello carbon taxes!) and the “need” for government micro-management of individual choice (good-bye incandescent light bulbs!), the die was cast.
My own opinion, and worth every penny you’re paying for it, its that the IPCC will lumber along for another 15-20 years if the current temperature pause persists for that long. It will gradually become less and less influential as governments are forced to acknowledge reality and turn away from (however reluctantly) a course of action to beggar present generations in persuit of ever more ephemeral returns for future generations. If a downward trend should become apparent I expect an earlier demise, perhaps as soon as 5-10 years depending on the slope of the decline.

Thank you, Kev’s Test (did I guess correctly? #(:)). That was so kind of you to answer my query. So. “Cooling,”, but ONLY IF in connection with volcanoes and/or aerosols (or in a tiny little general mention).
LOL, no way they’d say something like: “For the past 15 years, there has been no observable warming. In fact, in the last five years, it appears to be cooling. We were wrong.”

For the record: The leaked SPM 5 is “all conclusions” and “no science” – for practical purposes and thus for the purposes of real science, the reference numbers allegedly indicating “the science” producing the alleged “conclusions” refer to nothing. Therefore, according to the practice of real science, since the leaked SPM 5 in effect has “no science”, it contains no scientific conclusions. The leak and its verbiage are only the meaningless tactics of a propaganda operation.

Admittedly, I scanned it just now very briefly, mostly reading the highlighted text. I did however read the footnoted discussions of how they determined likelihoods and uncertainties, since I have an interest in that area. It appears they are using the same procedure to assess likelihoods used infamously by Cook, et. al. to reach a “97% consensus” amongst themselves. I was also struck by the hubris expressed in Table SPM.1 in which they give a number of assessments of conditions in the latter half of the 21st century as “virtually certain” or “very likely”. Given that they have trouble dealing with the pause and so-called “natural climate variations” on time scales of a few years to a decade it (e.g ice free arctic in 2013) they must have a very good Ouija board indeed.

Greg Laden says:
September 23, 2013 at 12:30 pm
“Well, this clearly puts you outside the range of normal, respectful, ethical behavior. The excuses you provide at the beginning of this post are lame. You should be ashamed of yourself. [etc.]”
h/t Stuart Smally aka Al Franken?

I think it is instructive to understand just how much presenting decadal averages obfuscates the failure of the models. Check out SPM.5 and see how closely the models seem to track observations. But if we take the graph from the leaked SOD, and put the proper detail into it, as one commenter did back in December of last year, we see just how bad the models are actually performing, and how the presentation hides the divergence. I reproduce the comment in its entirety here:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Go Home says:
December 31, 2012 at 8:20 amhttp://s1.postimage.org/fmklky2bz/IPCC_Pic_2a.png
IPCC figure 2 with the following superimposed on the graph:
WFT monthly values from 1986-2012.
WFT Trend line from 1986-2012 projected to 2050
WFT Trend line from 1998-2012 projected to 2050 (my cherry picked numbers)
[the effort is appreciated . . mod]

Thank you (from me, too), David Hoffer, for exposing that bit of flim flam. I’m looking forward to Bob Tisdale’s new book SLAMMING the IPCC on stuff like that. Their models ARE CRAP That they are dousing themselves in gallons of stench-covering, perfumed, publicity shows that they know they stink, too.
Go, Bob Tisdale!

Looks like from Table SPM 1 we’re 7/8ths for sure “very likely” to “virtually certain” headed for our justly deserved Heaven on Earth, Tropical Paradise Climate, arriving sometime in the latter half of the 21st century – Girls Gone Wild and Mariachi Boys are not mentioned specifically, but assumed to come with the territory as a matter of obvious necessity.
Hence, I’m expecting the next Glaciation.

After going through this draft again, I think the IPCC should be disbanded this week before the SPM report is released and the scientists sent packing. Its about as far from a truthful document as it can get.

Steven Mosher says:
September 23, 2013 at 12:43 pm “…Of course all the models, the mean of all models shows more ice than the subset….” Whathisname, Brit geochronologist, must be in charge. One Siberian tree showed that the end was near, global meltdown was on its way. Otherwise, 200 Siberian trees said “Buy longjohns.” Which one was presented for show? How can you be partial to this scam?

The horrible thing is, I am quite pleased that there is a hiatus. I should not be. I should be agnostic to the noise record. But just as Gore and Co were happy before the hiatus, I am happy now. But really it is no different. We have all got caught up the politics of it all and have “hope” that the hiatus lasts, or even better, that temperatures decline. Strange, isn’t it!

If they explain The Pause by a decrease in solar forcing, they’ll have a hard time explaining why the very high solar forcing of the last 70 years didn’t cause most or all of the temperature increase up until 1998. The sun was more active in the last half of the 20th century than in any period of the last 1000 years.

“… IPCC triumphantly announces to great adulation from the attending, grandly libated delegates that we have Global Warming In Our Time … return to their supercomputers running their home-brewed SimEarth…. Meanwhile, … the poor … without food because their land is being used for crops to be burnt to make rich people in other countries feel good about using “renewable energy”. … will freeze at night and choke in their huts on the fumes of dung from their cooking fire. … .”
(from “Grand Cook-off in Stockholm” by Bernd Felsche (link posted at 6:19pm above): http://contrary2belief.wordpress.com/2013/09/23/master-chefs-cookoff-in-stockholm/)Great read, everyone.
Thanks for sharing, Herr Felsche. (lol, “Global Warming in Our Time”… “SimEarth” (all the little people are going to be red, hopping mad that their car’s engine has been ruined by ethanol))

VietnamVetsForTruth and Lt. John F. Kerry:
So, poster “Navy Chief” got info from another poster (onemorecaptiansmast) that Texas Tech University Lubbock Tx had purchased from the Defense Dept. all the records of the Vietnam (war/confilct/operation). Said Navy Chief being an active duty E-9 with intel back ground and high knowledge of documents ect. he and others went online to the archives post hast.
Once there on line and later in person in Lubbock the records included the full records of Lt. Kerry’s and all other swiftboats communication logs, all the records who went where, who went on missions, where they went, all the reports all of it down to minute details.
100% fact based from these records proven that Lt. John F. Kerry fabricated each and every one of his awards and citations.
Other info on his trip to Paris, his actions and things regarding his DD-214 and Discharge.
Yet, where is John F. Kerry this very hour.
These people we are dealing with discard facts like they throw out the trash from the compactor each morning. Then the start another day of putting out new trash.
The U.N. is a lie, they live by lies, the ones who put these lies together will lie about this to the end of time. The MSM will cover for them to their last page/electronic gasp.
Yet time is not on their side, and the sun comes up, the tides do what gravity says, the earth does not know they exist, the speed of light is unchanged, the red shift is real, the atom dislikes being smashed and Mother Nature will paddle these bad acting chrldren in her on time.
Drill for oil, drill for natural gas, use it in a responsible way.
These other ones will selfdestruct soon enough, more rope they lust for, let them have it.

Did a review of said document herein attached:
Any one know if E&O insurance will cover you if you are putting out false data to committ fraud to collect taxes from the public for your own personal enrichment and or will the University they work for have to foot the lawyer cost and such. If so being most of these work for public (tax paid or universities) institutions. It looks like the people of each country will have to foot the legal bills for these crooks.
Still yet the windmills will rust and the beaches will remain the same except for the plate techtonics thingey.

Gunga Din says:
September 23, 2013 at 6:17 pm
Maybe off topic. Maybe not. (The IPCC gets its numbers from somewhere.)
I noticed a curious thing.
Today TWC said that the record high for my little spot on the globe was 93*F set in 2010.
I checked the NWS site and it agreed.
In 2007 the NWS said it was 91*F set in 1945.
OK. Toward the end of “the hottest decade on record” a new record for September 23rd was set.
I then checked what the NWS said in April of 2012.
The record high for Columbus Ohio in April of 2012 was 90*F set in 1941 and tied in 1945 and in 1961.
“Hmmm…”, I thought. I’m not a scientist but it seems to me that if the record high was really set in 2010 then it should have shown up on the April 2012 list I copied from the NWS website.
I can’t tell you how relieved I was to discover that not 3 months later, in July of 2012, that the record was “adjusted” just in time to fit in with the IPCC’s hottest decade on record.
Of course, I’m just a layman so I still have a question or two lingering in the back of my mind.
For instance, “Who re-read the thermometer back in 1941 and in 1945 (twice) and in 1961 and in 2012 (twice)? And why did they decide to lower it 1*F in 1945?” “Why did they raise it to 93*F in 2010?”
Maybe someone out there has the answer.
Pachauri? Mann? Gore?
Anyone? Anyone?

richardscourtney says:
September 23, 2013 at 12:58 pm
“,,,
ROLE
2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.
…”
///////////////////////
Further to Richard’s post regarding the role of the IPCC, the interpretation that he expresses is a possible interpretation of the remit (that he quotes) and probably it is the interpretation held by a cynic. That interpretation does not necessarily follow from the wording used. It appears that the IPCC have allowed themselves to become subverted, probably as a consequence of the fact that many of the lead scientists are also activists (some more so than others, and some more of an activist than a scientist) and it is because of this subversion that the IPCC reports have become so politicised as opposed to taking a comprehensive and objective investigation into the science which is relevant to assessing the risk of human induced climate change.
So for example, the failure to address some of the issues such as
(i) Why does the satellite temperature data set from 1979 to 1998 differ so starkly to that of the various thermometer data sets? This would include an investigation as to whether the warming shown in the land based data sets is a consequence of UHI, and/or lack of screen maintenance and/or station siting issues, and/or station drop outs and/or the consequence of adjustments/homogenisation of the data over this period.
(ii) Why computer model projections have departed so substantially from observed reality? Are computer models fit for purpose, and what level of confidence should be had in their projections?
(iii) Why is Antarctic ice not melting and why is global ice extent still normal and why is the Arctic behaving to that of the Antarctic?
(iv) Is climate change truly to be regarded as global or is it better viewed as a local or regional phenomena? In particular how is each significant area of the globe (say divided into continents, possibly sub-divided into NSWE and mid) responding and why the different response to what is thought may be a well distributed driver?
(v) To what extent are any of the data sets fit for purpose. What are the true error margins/confidence levels applicable to eacg data set. What, if any, conclusions can be drawn from them.
(vi) To what extent is there correlation between CO2 levels and rate of change in CO2 levels with temperature in the various data sets, and then where any time period does not correlate (ie., temperatures fall, or temperatures remain static) to examine that time period and seek to explain why temperatures fell or remained static or the rise in temperature did not accelerate over and above previous temperature rises which took place when CO2 emissions were relatively low.
(vii) The proper understanding of natural variation. Indeed, this is in practice the holy grail of the climate change issue. Because until we fully understand natural variation what it comprises of, what are the individual forcing events, how these operate and the lower and upper bounds of each and every constituent forcing, it is impossible as a matter of logic to separate the signal of manmade induced temperature changes from the noise of natural variation. I emphasise the importance of this since until natural variation is fully known and understood, it is quite impossible to examine the temperature record and assess whether CO2 has any role whatsoever, by which I mean whether CO2 has a warming effect, a cooling effect, or simply neutral, still less the strength of any positive or negative effect. So for example, until natural variation is fully understood I could make out a case that adding CO2 has a negative effect on temperature. I do this as follows: when the record shows warming I assert that CO2 had a negative effect but natural variation was very highly positive and thus dominated the cooling effect of CO2 leading to a net increase in observed temperatures , when temperatures were static, I claim that CO2 was cooling but at this time natural variation was weakly positive such that one cancelled out the other such that there was no change in the observed temperature, and when it shows cooling I assert that CO2 had a cooling effect but at this time natural variation was entirely neutral such that CO2 dominated temperature at that time leading to a cooling of the observed temperature.
I could carry on with this list, but my point is that the remit expressly calls for a “comprehensive, objective” assessment of the scientific issues and yet the IPCC ignores this call. This is not because of the wording of the remit, but rather a consequence of subversion of the IPCC by those who do not want to see a thorough comprehensive and objective investigation and assessment of the science. Indeed, if one were being objective, the report would emphasise the shortcomings of the science and in particular the key data sets which are not fit for purpose and which are being extrapolated and interpreted beyond reasonable measure.
Further the remit provides that whilst the “reports should be neutral with respect to policy” they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.” The use of the word “may” does not actually compel the IPCC to deal objectively with policy etc, it is at liberty to choose whether or not to do so. However, when discussing adaption and mitigation (human induced climate change on “potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation”), it ought to set out how adaption may proceed and its consequences, and how mitigation may proceed and its consequences (this will depend upon the extent to which CO2 emissions should be cut and the pace of such cuts, but the socio-economic consequence of the policy to reduce CO2 by substantial levels in the absence of replacing energy production by way of nuclear is the deindustrialisation of the globe generally and the developed world in particular returning the developed world back to the levels of poverty and quality of life as seen in the third world and keeping the 3rd world in its present state and condemning its citizens to continue to live in poverty, hunger and have a poor and short life expectancy). It should also look at the extent CO2 is actually mitigated (ie, reduced globally) by the various policies that the policy makers are considering and/or have implemented and accordingly should examine the net reduction of CO2 by such schemes as carbon trading (no world wide reduction of CO2 merely a redistribution of where CO2 is emitted and therefore not a policy of effective mitigation), the introduction of windfarms, because of the unreliable nature of wind necessitating the need for conventional back up which back up is not running at optimum efficiency, there being little if any net reduction in CO2, ditto solar and hence to what extent these achieve the goal of mitigating emissions etc.
I could go on. I accept that the remit of the IPCC is not well drafted but if one were to interpret the remit in the spirit of its intention, it would be adequate. It is not the remit itself but rather the fact that the IPCC has become subverted which has meant that a comprehensive and objective study into the science has not been conducted, this has led to a failure to express the risk of human induced climate change correctly (which is that presently there is inadequate data, coupled with the fact that we lack the knowledge and expertise, to assess what if any risk there is of human induced climate change, but as matters presently stand we are unable to deduce the signal to CO2 from the noise of natural variability such that whilst all risk cannot be ruled out, the risk does not appear substantial).
It is the natural world that sets the game and makes the rules (this is why natural variation must as a pre-cursor be fully understood). It is man’s arrogance that he considers that he can set himself above this. It is the first pictures of the Earth, from space, that led some to consider how vulnerable planet Earth is, when in reality it simply emphasises how insignificant man is. The fact that ants and termites emit more GHGs than man reinforces this view. We are but a pin prick on the planet, and it will survive as it always has not withstanding the fire and brimstone that it the globe has gone through these past 4.5 billion years until such time as the sun expands and boils off the oceans, and then the atmosphere and eventually engulfs and consumes the planet (or if, upon its expansion, the sun does not quite engulf the planet, the planet will be left as a burnt out rocky mass orbiting close to its star the energy from which star will eventually fade away). Until then, sit back, relax and enjoy the ride.

Judith Curry said,
If the IPCC attributes to the pause to natural internal variability, then this begs the question as to what extent the warming between 1975 and 2000 can also be explained by natural internal variability. Not to mention raising questions about the confidence that we should place in the IPCC’s projections of future climate change.

– – – – – – – –
And it begs the question of why, in their self imposed isolation from intellectually skeptical communities and in their bizarre struggle for secrecy in order to be transparent, does the IPCC Bureau still act like it cares about its reputation?
It is because they are mere actors playing a role in a work of science fiction. Acting like they care about their reputation is in the fictional script they must use. Their fictional script is mandated politically by the framework agreement that is the basis for the IPCC.
The IPCC Bureau are truly horrible actors, even the MSM sense this.
John

fobdangerclose says:
September 23, 2013 at 8:48 pm
/////////////////
For what its worth, my comments are:
Fraud unravels all. Insurance does not cover fraud. Fraud is neither an error, nor an omission through oversight.
A deliberate omission could amount to fraud. One does not make a deliberate error. That would be an oxymoron.

@richardscourtney says:
September 23, 2013 at 12:58 pm
Thank you for that reminder regarding the genesis of the IPCC. Based on your extracted material, it doesn’t seem that the current state of affairs was a foregone conclusion.

Nice try but no coconut. I provided information on the EXISTING remit of the IPCC and not its “genesis ”.
For the third time in this thread, I provide the link.http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
As I said in my post at September 23, 2013 at 2:16 pm, the “Role” of the IPCC was again approved as recently as “ the Thirty-Fifth Session (Geneva, 6-9 June 2012) ”; n.b. last year.
So, contrary to your assertion, it DOES seem that the current state of affairs was a foregone conclusion because the IPCC is officially tasked to accept as a given that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires political policies to be selected from “options for adaptation and mitigation” that the IPCC is tasked to provide. ”.
The IPCC is pure politics pretending to be science because that is its specified job.
Richard

I quote the IPCC “Role” in full.
But you quote the part which fits your narrative and ignore the part which does not. You say

I could carry on with this list, but my point is that the remit expressly calls for a “comprehensive, objective” assessment of the scientific issues and yet the IPCC ignores this call.

NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT! The IPCC “Role” is specified as being

2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
So, the IPCC has NOT been “subverted” as you assert.
The IPCC is doing the job it is tasked to do.
The IPCC is officially tasked to accept as a given that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires political policies to be selected from “options for adaptation and mitigation” that the IPCC is tasked to provide. .
Richard

Spot on. It was my writing words to that effect on the Guardian website that finally got me put on permanent pre-moderation.

It seems the moderator misunderstood me so I guess others may have too.
I am on pre-moderation – at the Guardian website.
To my knowledge I have not yet been pre-moderated here. But trying this new inserting a picture think may get me banned.

richardscourtney says:
September 24, 2013 at 1:25 am
“The IPCC is pure politics pretending to be science because that is its specified job.”
And that’s why the IPCC still has not established that its AGW would even constitute a net disease state.

I can see what the IPCC are up to this time. They’ve hidden the pause by using decadal averages, which is why they all cut off at 2005. They’ve started the data at 1901, which conveniently happens to be close to the minimum point in the temperature record.

Personally, I think this is the fat lady singing for Climate Alarmism. I think it will disappear suprisingly quickly. The earth hasn’t played ball at all. As far as I can see there is literally no evidence at all, and less and less every year.

@ Shona — “no evidence at all” — precisely. And there is more and more evidence AGAINST AGW every year.
***************************
And here she is….. the “fat lady” singing the death knell of AGW!
Translation 😉
Juuust you wait, yes, oh, juuust you, wait,
You will soon see what is in store for you…….
Oh, yes, it’s cahming, thee end is cahming,
the death of si-eh-jee-dah-bull-you
……………
La moooorrte, … laaa mooooorte,
la mooooooooooooooorte……….
La Morte!
Ha — HA– ha— HAAAAAAAAAAA!

richardscourtney says:
September 24, 2013 at 1:48 am
//////////////
Richard
You have misinterpreted what I have said.
i did not say that you were a cynic.
I did not say that only people who are cynics would hold the interpretation that you put forward.
I did not say that people who are not cynics would not share the interpretation put forward.
i put forward a generalisation that the interpretation that you have put forward would be an interpretaion appealing to one who is cynical of the IPCC, and as such it is probably the interpretation held by a cynic. This is a generalisation, and I fully accept that cynics may not hold the interpretation that you put forward. I also quite obviously accept that those who are not cynical of the IPCC may hold the interpretation you put forward.
I accept that your interpretation is a possible interpretation, but I beg to differ that it is the correct interpreation.
It is impossible to “..assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change…” without investigating the extent to which climate change is the result of natural non anthropogenic causes.
It is like playing poker, when considering the strength of one’s own hand and the chance of its success, one has to evaluate the risk that the other player will draw good on the river. You might need an ace to make a good hand, you may be able to assess the chance of drawing an ace on the river, but determination alone will not determine the prospects/chance of winning since if that ace were to turn up, it mighty mean that your opponent will make a flush or a straight. you need to determine that risk as well. Both sides of the coin go hand in hand to the proper determination of risks.
If risk assessment is to be performed properly, it is impossible as a matter of risk assessment not to examine fully the other side of the coin. In the climate field one cannot assess the risk of human induced climate change, or the risks that would ensue from human induced climate change until one has assessesthe risk that climate change is not human induced.
If the determination is that climate change is 100% due to natural causes then
(i) you can assess the risk of human induced climate change, this being that there is that there is no risk, or at least no risk unless human activity of another kind takes place 9which other activity could perhaps lead to human induced climate change);
(ii) you can assess the risks that are run to life on planet earth, socieo-economical issues,
infrastructural issues, farming etc etc from human induced climate change, which again can be assessed at none given that you have ascertained that climate change is not human induced.
I do not dispute that the IPCC is looking for data, research that supports the human induced climate change theory. But whilst that is part of its role, the correct interpretation of the ambit of its role is not so limited. It is charged not simply with setting out the case for human induced climate change but rather the evaluation of the risk that climate change is human induced and in order to properly perform that role it needs to assess the risk that climate change is natural and down to non anthropogenic causes.
it is charged with assessing the risks of potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation of human induced climate change. Once again, in order to discharge this obligation it has to assess the risk that climate change is natural and all down to non anthropogenic cause. This is obvious since if climate change is not due to say for example CO2, it is not mitigated by restricting CO2 emissions, by carbon capture, by a switch to green renewables etc.
I usually agree with your comments, we share many similar views, but upon this, with respect, I think that you are mistaken. The difference between us is somewhat accademic; we both accept that the IPCC is prejudiced and not objective, you consider that this was all predetermined by the terms of reference, I consider the terms of reference not to be so limited but that it has become subverted leading to the same ultimate consequence/result.

Richard
Further to my above comment.
The OJ Simpson case is a good example. If you were to make an assessment as to how the trial would pan out looking at the prosecutor’s hand, you would conclude that they had an overwhelming case. However, that fails to consider the hand held by Simpson. We live in a celebrity culture where celebrities are idolised. Simpson was a celebrity of substantial standing much loved and admired. This had a substantial bearing on how matters panned out.
You cannot assess risks, particularly not in a comprehensive and objective fashion, without considering in detail all possibilities.
Leaving aside my point about how risk is determined, think about your interpretation, what meaning are you giving to the word ‘objective’? Are you suggesting that the studies referred to by the IPCC are ‘objective’? that the analysis of data and its errors are ‘objective’? its reliance upon computer models and the averaging of such projections is ‘objective’? Objectively, is not a one way street. i would also add the word ‘comprehensive’ but I accept that that word could be construed (I would say misconstrued) to simply meaning dealing comprehensively with everything that supports human induced climate change to the exclusion of matters that do not support the theory.
The more I think about it, the more firm I am of the view that one cannot assess the risks of human induced climate change (or the risks that would ensue if climate change is human induced) without properly (comprehensively and objectively) looking at the weakness of the evidence that supports the human induced climate change theory, as well as considering the strengths, merits and weakness that climate change is not human induced. All of this is risk assessment.
PS. I did not say in my last post that I did not in my original post seek to infer that you were a cynic. As explained, In my original post, I did not say that you were a cynic, nor infer that you were such, but if you (or others) thought that I was inferring this of you, I wish to make it clear that I was not and I apologize if my comment was construed in such manner. It was not my intention that it should be so construed.

richard verney:
I am replying to your long posts at September 25, 2013 at 12:58 am and September 25, 2013 at 1:24 am; i.e.http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/23/access-the-leaked-ipcc-ar5-draft-summary-for-policymakers/#comment-1426058
andhttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/23/access-the-leaked-ipcc-ar5-draft-summary-for-policymakers/#comment-1426072The IPCC is pure politics pretending to be science because that is its specified job.
This is clearly and unambiguously specified as being the “Role” of the IPCC as stated in the IPCC “Principles”.http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
Importantly, throughout the entire existence of the IPCC, the Signatories to the UN FCCC and the IPCC have adopted, confirmed and enacted that “Role”.
The IPCC was created to have three Working Groups (WG). These WGs operate simultaneously and provide their Reports at the same time. Their duties areWorking Group I: The Scientific Basis.https://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/Working Group III: Mitigation, Synthesis Report.http://www.ipcc-wg3.de/A scientific operation of those WGs would be for the contents of a WG1 Report to be used by WG2 in its deliberations, and then the contents of a WG2 Report to be used by WG3.2 in its deliberations of “mitigation”.
The IPCC has NEVER done that.
In accordance with the IPCC Role,
WG1 collates and reports scientific information supportive of AGW
WG2 assesses ‘Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability’ to AGW, and
WG3 proposes options for mitigation of AGW.
Importantly, they operate and report simultaneously with each WG accepting as a given – and in accordance with the IPCC Role – that AGW does have a “science base”, is sufficient to provide impacts that require adaption because of vulnerability so demand options for mitigation.
The Synthesis Report is then compiled from the contents of the WG1, WG2 and WG3 Reports.This is a purely political process for purely political reasons. Indeed, the Report of each IPCC WG is approved ‘line by line’ by politicians and/or the representatives of politicians. Scientific reports are reviews by scientists and are NOT approved by politicians. .
This purely political – definitely NOT scientific – “Role” of the IPCC is deliberate and it is frequently reviewed to ensure it is maintained. The most recent approvals by FCCC Signatory governments are
at Fourteenth Session (Vienna, 1-3 October 1998) on 1 October 1998,
and amended at the Twenty-First Session (Vienna, 3 and 6-7 November 2003),
approved at the Twenty-Fifth Session (Mauritius, 26-28 April 2006) and
again approved at the Thirty-Fifth Session (Geneva, 6-9 June 2012)
Your claims that these demonstrable realities are a “cynical view” are spin without foundation.The IPCC is pure politics pretending to be science because that is its specified job which it does in fulfillment of the specification.
Richard

The worst thing about the IPCC which was set up on the assumption that significant CO2 (human produced) induced warming is occurring is that no-one seems to be in the firing line personally. What all contributing governments should be doing is demanding a RACI chart (responsibility, accountability, consultation and information) as is used in all modern organisations. Given the amount of human effort and money involved some-one must be held accountable for what their report says

Failure to anticipate the pause is the one thing acknowledged by Kevin Trenberth in a presentation he gave on August 29th, 2013, which I attended. His handling was a falsified temperature graph (no 1930’s warm spell) in which the pause just looks like a blip on a general rising trend.
So that is getting through. We should get two other things across: 1) Shell Oil Company donations were a part of Climategate, and the actual funding ratio is 1000:1 in favor of the alarmists. What does that do to scientific objectivity or the ability to arrive at the truth? Many scientific disciplines are compromised by funding availability for alarmism (any kind of alarmism). That needs to be understood and addressed.
2) And the outright falsification and making up of data. Trenberth had a convincing-looking graph showing a close correlation between CO2 and temperature. This required falsifying the temperature record as in my first paragraph, combined with a CO2 graph extrapolating the known curve from Mauna Loa 100 years earlier, essentially by making up imaginary carbon dioxide levels. We need to call them on that–Lord Monckton is especially good with such things. Rub his nose in this and the general public will find out. And this has to include the graph WUWT ran a couple years ago: temperatures versus number of weather stations. That graph shows you that the warming is indeed man-made (in addition to Mann-made, but he was only a part). This graph was displayed here only once–I think Anthony Watts is a sweetie who cannot face the ugly implications of deliberate falsehood. But if it’s reality, we better deal with it.
As to the funding, we are aware of their projection: imagining that skeptics are “well-funded and organized.” This is a hot-button and one we should finally take advantage of. Where does the alarmist funding come from? Primarily governments fund them. A major part of the motivation for alarmism seems to be a desire for more tax dollars from a tapped-out public–the carbon tax. Leading alarmist Al Gore, former congressman and veep, and Presidential candidate (i.e. politician, not scientist) visited Dr. Keeling at Mauna Loa before the scare really began and heard Keeling’s musings on what the steady rise in CO2 might mean. That’s when Al got interested. Gore’s father was also a Tennessee congressman, so Al grew up where money and its good things came from taxes, and this has been his whole life. He is disconnected from reality.
The attack on fossil fuels is an attack on the worldwide economy at its foundations. We have had plenty of articles on that at WUWT, but the general public has little idea how strong is the connection. Just wait til they find out. The solution to the politicians’ greed and the world economy is two-fold and simple: 1) quit attacking energy; and 2) give the people freedom. Economic freedom in particular, and freedom to express opinions, unleash creativity and produce a huge gain in wealth. Then there is plenty for the government, too.

richardscourtney says:
September 25, 2013 at 3:36 am
////////////////////////
richard
thanks for your further comments.
i am not disagreeing with you as to how matters have turned out, nor whether the IPCC have apolitical role to play, nor whether they are playing a political role, only whether the one sided nature of their reports was preordained/predetermined by the wording used in paragraph 2 Role.
If this matter came before the English Courts for some form of judicial review and the IPCC souught to argue that the provisions of paragraph 2 (their role) entitled them to consider and present only data/evidence/studies etc that supported that (i) climate change was happening; and/or (ii) that climate change was human induced; and/or (iii) entitled them not to consider and to disregard and to not include in their report that climate change was not happening or that if it was happening then it was due to a cause other than human induced, I am extremely confident that the English Courts would give that argument short shrift. I make no comment upon how other systems of law may approach the interpretation of paragraph 2.
Whilst I accept that your interpretation is a possible interpretation, I would say that it is an extraordinary one, such that very clear words would be required to come to that result. I say that it is an extraordinary one, since it is an interpretation that an ordinary person would consider to be perverse.
If that had been the intention, paragraph 2 would have explicitly stated such. It would have read along the following lines
: ‘The IPCC are to assume that climate change is happening and that that change is human induced, upon the basis of that assumption the IPCC are to assess potential impacts of human induced climate change and options for adaptation and mitigation’ or
‘The IPCC are charged with the obligation to present evidence that climate change is happening and that that change is human induced. The IPCC is charged with the further obligation to assess potential impacts of human induced climate change and options for adaptation and mitigation.’
If you like you may dress up the above by throwing in “comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis” to make it look a little bit more sciency. I have not done that because I am seeking to show you the thrust of the wording that would permit the IPCC to stand by your interpretation.
If I recall correctly (and I have not specifically looked into the history) I seem to recall having read on a number of occassions that FAR was not going to conclude that climate change was human induced, but was in fact neutral, but just prior to publication one lead author decided unilaterally, to amend the draft and set out that conclussion. If that is so, then it would seem to undermine your interpretation. You probably know more about the history of the IPCC than I do.
As i said earlier, it does not really matter.how things have come to pass. The material point is that they have happened and the IPCC is essentially political activism.
One can see the politicised nature of all of this by the fact that Germany did not want the pause to be discussed. I suspect that this was motivated by the fact that they have gone too far down the road of green renewable energy with ruinous results for industry and consumer alike. Their industry has become uncompetitive being saddled with the highest energy costs in Europe and energy intensive industries are relocating to countries with cheaper energy (eg., some substantial chemical industries relocating to the US). Germany does not want to see other countries roll back their green renewable projects. Germany wants every one else to catch up with Germany so that all countries are saddled with high energy prices. In that way Germany industrial competitiveness will be restored (since all counties will have equally expensive energy) and there will also then be no point in their industries relocating since the relocation country will be saddled by high energy costs, so there is no saving to be made there. Accordingly, Germany does not want the IPCC to report on matters that may cause other countries to hesitate or worse still to abandon their green renewable policies. For political reason, Germany wishes to see all other countries follow its lead in committing economic suicide as this is the simplest way for Germany to help out their own industries.

richard verney:
I congratulate you on your post at September 25, 2013 at 2:57 pm. It is a toure de force of irrelevancies and ‘red herrings’.
In my post at September 25, 2013 at 3:36 amhttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/23/access-the-leaked-ipcc-ar5-draft-summary-for-policymakers/#comment-1426131
I stated the IPCC Role as defined in its “Principles”, the application of that Role since Day One of the IPCC, and the frequent approvals of that Role by FCCC Signatory governments.Clearly, the UN IPCCC Signatory governments agree that the IPCC “Role” is correct and is being – and always has been – correctly interpreted and applied. Otherwise they would not keep unanimously voting for it.
But you talk about imagined views of what some English Court may think, whether the CORRECT (i.e. adopted and repeatedly approved) interpretation of that Role is “extraordinary”, what you call my “interpretation” (i.e. what the IPCC actually does to fulfill its Role), the ‘Chapter 8 Scandal’ (which I recall but you say you don’t), and Germany’s dislike of the AR5 mentioning ‘The Pause’.None of that is relevant.
The simple truth is as I have explained with links to complete documentary evidence; i.e.The IPCC is pure politics pretending to be science because that is its specified job which it does in fulfillment of the specification.
Richard

richardscourtney says:
September 25, 2013 at 3:24 pm
///////////////////
Richard
This post is about the leaked SPM. It is the content of that document that is important, not the reasons why it contains what it contains.
Any comment that pertains to why the SPM contains what it contains is essentially a red herring and an irrelevance, and I include in this your initial post (September 23, 2013 at 12:58 pm )suggesting the predetermination of the views expressed by the IPCC (given your interpretation of the provision of their role), and my comments suggesting that it was not so preordained but came to pass due to subversion of process. Discussions on the politicised nature of the IPCC is but an aside. May be of some interest, particularly if one has a political bent, but ultimately of no consequence.
Incidentally, if one wanted to cite examples of the way the IPCC conducts its affairs and the politicised nature of all of this (your 03:36am post refers), the most glaring exampe is that the SPM comes out before the report itself is finalised and published, and that the SPM is drafted with the active participation of the policy makers themselves. This not only places the cart before the horse but enables those making the policy to decide what carriage they sit in and how it is decked out. Given that the next climate conference takes place in 2015, there is no need to have the SPM published this year.
My example of Germany was cited as an example of how politicians put pressure on the IPCC over the contents of the SPM and the report. Contrary to your view, it is in fact of some relevance to this particular post since one of the issues of contention is how will the IPCC deal with the pause? Different countries have different self interests. Germany’s self interest is that the pause should not be discussed because they do not want to encourage others to have cold feet when treading the long and winding and ruinous road to green renewable energy. This is because Germany wishes to help their induistries remain competitive so they need other counries to have equally high energy costs, Now I do not know whether Germany will get its way or whether other countries will win out. Personally, given the recent media interest in this, I do not see how the IPCC can avoid dealing with the pause. Whether they wish to simply paper over it with the thinly veiled decadel averages remains to be seen. I am fairly confident that you would agree that both as a matter of science and also as a consequence of the assessment of risks pertaining to human induced climate change, the pause needs to be discussed since it has a bearing on, amongst other matters, climate sensitivity, the effectiveness of climate model projections and to what extent CO2 is dominant over natural variation..
Anyway, as i say, motive is irrelavent, it is all a mtter of content that matters. On that we will know more after the Stockholm meeting.,
,

richard verney:
This is a brief note to show that I have read your silly post at September 25, 2013 at 7:35 pm which is part of your campaign to pretend the IPCC is a scientific organisation.
You say

Anyway, as i say, motive is irrelavent, it is all a mtter of content that matters. On that we will know more after the Stockholm meeting.,

Bollocks! The motive defines the content.
As I have I have explained with links to complete documentary evidence the IPCC is pure politics pretending to be science because that is its specified job which it does in fulfillment of the specification.
I shall ignore any further posts from you unless they contain something worthy of response.
Richard

For permission, contact us. See the About>Contact menu under the header.

All rights reserved worldwide.

Some material from contributors may contain additional copyrights of their respective company or organization.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on WUWT. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. This notice is required by recently enacted EU GDPR rules, and since WUWT is a globally read website, we need to keep the bureaucrats off our case!
Cookie Policy